|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Malrassic ParkMalrassic Park Date: Feb 16, 2008 16:21
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:41:35 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>Which is, I am trying to find out ultimately what material objects
>Kant experiences for his specific knowledge of time and space
And I am trying to find out ultimately what material objects Rand
experiences for her specific knowledge of "unit" and "percept."
--
Such little questions, so many times...
|
| |
|
| | 126 Comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Feb 16, 2008 21:16
On Feb 17, 9:21 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
> And I am trying to find out ultimately what material objects Rand
> experiences for her specific knowledge of "unit" and "percept."
Not enough context Melon.
My question of Kant's I & S (intuit and sensibility) crap includes
the entire context, in which Kant claims, "that the beginning of all
of man's knowledge is objects awakening man's experiences, of that
there is no doubt" and his claim that man's knowledge a priori of
time and space comes from his knowledge of intuit and sensibility,
therefore, man's knowledge of intuit and sensibility must have had
objects awakening his experiences, or Kant's version of man's
knowledge of time and space is a contradiction of his claim that all
of man's knowledge begins with objects awakeing his experiences.
You cant have your cake and eat it too Melon.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Feb 16, 2008 23:04
On Feb 16, 9:16 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> On Feb 17, 9:21 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> And I am trying to find out ultimately what material objects Rand
>> experiences for her specific knowledge of "unit" and "percept."
>
> Not enough context Melon.
>
> My question of Kant's I & S (intuit and sensibility) crap includes
> the entire context, in which Kant claims, "that the beginning of all
> of man's knowledge is objects awakening man's experiences, of that
> there is no doubt" and his claim that man's knowledge a priori of
> time and space comes from his knowledge of intuit and sensibility,
> therefore, man's knowledge of intuit and sensibility must have had
> objects awakening his experiences, or Kant's version of man's
> knowledge of time and space is a contradiction of his claim that all
> of man's knowledge begins with objects awakeing his experiences.
>
> You cant have your cake and eat it too Melon.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.98Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Feb 17, 2008 01:59
On Feb 17, 4:04 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:>
> The process of deriving the necessity of time and space is similar to
> the route to non-contradictory-identification or the I think therefore
> I am.
No its not, and space and time are no more related than distance and
weight.
But anyway who cares? I'm still waiting for Melon to explain what
objects or events awaken man's experiences of intuit and sensibility,
so as to try and make some sense of Kant's dopey non-sense, that man's
knowledge a priori of time and space somehow comes from man's
knowledge of intuit and sensibilty, someone needs to stop the merry-go-
round before Melon gets giddy and falls off it.
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Malrassic ParkMalrassic Park Date: Feb 17, 2008 08:09
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:16:27 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>On Feb 17, 9:21 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> And I am trying to find out ultimately what material objects Rand
>> experiences for her specific knowledge of "unit" and "percept."
>
>Not enough context Melon.
Fuck you, asshole. You don't know the first thing about context, much
less anything else on this forum. Either answer the question or Have A
Great Day somewhere else.
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
| 15 Comments |
|
|
Author: Malrassic ParkMalrassic Park Date: Feb 17, 2008 08:10
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:59:52 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>On Feb 17, 4:04 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:>>
>> The process of deriving the necessity of time and space is similar to
>> the route to non-contradictory-identification or the I think therefore
>> I am.
>
>No its not, and space and time are no more related than distance and
>weight.
>
>But anyway who cares? I'm still waiting for Melon to explain what
>objects or events awaken man's experiences of intuit and sensibility,
Your question is dopey, it comes from a complete dope. Haven't you
figured that out yet? You sound like a total fucktard.
|
| Show full article (0.97Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Feb 17, 2008 13:27
On Feb 18, 1:10 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
> You sound like a total fucktard.
How does that help you in your explanation of what objects and or
events awaken your experiences to begin your knowledge of time space
intuit and sensibility?
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Feb 17, 2008 13:51
On Feb 18, 1:09 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
> Fuck you, asshole. You don't know the first thing
> about context,
The context of Kant's PUDOR is that, [sic].. "That all of your
knowledge begins with objects awakening your experiences, of that
there is no doubt".
Therefore, what objects and or events (which require objects anyway)
awaken the Kantian's experiences for its knowledge of intuit,
sensibility, time and space?
> Either answer the question or..
Tut tut now calm down, you're not ready for Kindergarten philosophy
yet.
But I'll give you a little taste, man's knowledge of "density" begins
by him experiencing, via his senses of course, the composition or
structure of different forms of matter.
Your turn now, what does man experience to begin his knowledge of
intuit.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Feb 18, 2008 21:40
On Feb 17, 1:59 am, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> On Feb 17, 4:04 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> The process of deriving the necessity of time and space is similar to
>> the route to non-contradictory-identification or the I think therefore
>> I am.
>
> No its not, and space and time are no more related than distance and
> weight.
>
Distance and weight necessarily require space, that is, in any languge
argument.
|
| Show full article (0.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Feb 18, 2008 23:44
On Feb 19, 2:40 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
> Distance and weight necessarily require space, that is, in any languge
> argument.
But you're uncertain of that of course, whereas I am certain that
space and time are no more of a relationship to each other than
distance and weight are to each other.
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
